On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> writes: > > Hello Tom, > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 04:54:48PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > [...] > > >> The project is https://gitlab.com/CentOS/automotive/src/ukiboot and reads > >> UKI (https://uapi-group.org/specifications/specs/unified_kernel_image) > >> images from raw data partitions. Just like ABL reads Android Boot images. > >> > >> > Are you planning to add it to the EBBR specification? > >> > > >> > >> I haven't thought about it before but I also didn't know that u-boot had > >> this requirement. Probably it should be documented somewhere to make it > >> more clear? Maybe I didn't look enough but didn't find a doc in the repo. > > > > We are not strictly and only EBBR requirements, if there is good reason > > That's good to know. Heinrich's answer seemed to imply that u-boot was > limited to EBBR requirements.
It's one of the main users, yes, but it shouldn't be seen as *only* for that. > > to add more features (and tests). But Heinrich's follow-up question is > > Oh, I missed the lib/efi_selftest directory. I'll see to add a test then. Thanks. > > quite important. I feel like there's already a half dozen offerings of > > A/B update that works within UEFI. > > > > I just brought the A/B boot protocol used by ukiboot because I was asked > how I was using the EFI_PARTITION_INFO_PROTOCOL. But I'm not proposing to > add a new A/B update mechanism for u-boot, just to implement an existing > EFI protocol... Yes, this was more a lament for the ecosystem as a whole really. The concept of A/B(/Golden) with various security features is pretty old at this point, there's many implementations. I wish there was not "here is yet another" in the space. But regardless, we should aim to have U-Boot be able to be used with it. Otherwise my crystal ball says that a few years down the line it'll be hard to use Fedora-IoT-distro on common-device with U-Boot. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature